…the more a conspiracy theorist I become.
But I am not alone. Read:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-mckay/were-gonna-frickin-lose-t_b_124772.html
I wrote THIS in February:
This morning on a national network, there was a political statistic that made me realize how naïve I have been. It seems that in the most recent primaries there has been a “trend” among Republican voters that has not emerged until the Republican candidate had all but been signed, sealed and delivered. The trend consists of Republican voters eschewing their Republican primary booths and (in the states that allow it) voting in the Democratic ones. Republicans are deciding not to “waste” their vote in their own primaries. Why? Because they KNOW who their candidate will be in November. So instead, they are entering their polling booths and are casting their votes in their state’s Democratic primaries. And for whom are they voting? Barack Obama. But they are voting for him not because they have abandoned their Party. They are voting for him not because they want him to be President. They are voting for him because they believe him to be the Democratic candidate most “beatable” against John McCain.
And TODAY:
Again, pardon my conspiracy theory but I also believe that the media conglomerates mentioned in the article above have employed the same tactics. Barack was the media's darling until he beat Hillary. Then, like a psychotic lover it turned on him. I noticed it almost immediately (so did Elisabeth Schussler-Fiorenza with whom I had a conversation about this very thing in June). Barack was judged by these media moguls to be the beatable candidate making way for another four years of Republican tax breaks and "friendship." If you owned a multi-billion $$$ company, who would YOU want in the White House?
I want to scream.
4 comments:
I debunked your interpretation of Republicans voting in the Democratic primary last spring after you made it then. And, there is nothing whatsoever in the McKay Huffington Post article to support your argument (which I previously debunked) that Republicans were voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries because they believed that he was a weaker candidate than Clinton in the general election. It's just simply not true.
Here's my take-home message from the McKay piece: it is extremely depressing that so many Americans (at least 51%, if you take McKay's estimate of the effect of the press on the electorate) who trade on ignorance and fear. Fear of blacks; yes, fear of strong successful women; fear of the educated (read elites); fear of immigrants. And they are aided by a compliant press.
Although I'm not sure I agree. The press has given Palin a bit of a ride, to be sure, and there have been the ususal preemptive attacks against the so-called "liberal" media by conservatives and republicans. But the press is reporting the facts about Palin's record, and they are punching back against the repeated lies. I'm cautiously optimistic . . .
Read this column by Frank Rich: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14rich.html?em. I wholeheartedly agree with him. McCain has given in to the hard right, and he is really offering Palin as the next and future president. We are talking about Palin/McCain.
The reactionaries will do whatever it takes to win, including voting for an inexperienced neophyte as the presumptive president, to avoid facing the future.
And this would be the same regardless of whether the Democratic nominee was Obama or Clinton. I also made this point earlier, and I stand by it. The stringest dynamic in this presidential cycle is not males vs. females, or whites vs. blacks. Rather, it is conservatives fighting tooth and nail against inevitable change for an idealized small-town, Christian America that never existed except in their own twisted dreams.
Do you have any credible evidence or argument to claim that this same narrative wouldn't be playing out if Clinton was the nominee and not Obama?
Re-reading my posts, the tone was a bit more pointed than I would have liked. Sorry if I sounded a bit snarky. (Plus, I regret the typo.)
With all the talk about which political divide (gender or race) was more significant during the Democratic primary, I always thought the most significant was ignored: the conservative/liberal divide. I know I’m not really explaining this very well (I’d have to start my own blog to flesh this out – it would take me more than 2,000 characters), but here is one quick example: There was a lot of talk about Hillary’s “emotional” moment and what effect that had on the race, whether the media was being sexist, etc. But no one mentioned the greater double standard – it wasn’t a gender issue, it was a political issue. Republicans have gamed the political system and media so well they can be emotional to their benefit, while a Democrat (no matter whether a man or a woman) only does so at his or her peril.
My main point: I don’t see how the general campaign would be much different if Clinton were the nominee. We’d still be looking at a neck and neck race, because yes, that many Americans are that stupid. Regardless of the Democratic candidate, we would still be in this nasty pigsty of a campaign, with the constant lying and negative campaigning by the Republicans, because that’s all they got. Maybe the running mate would be Jindal instead, for another kind of tokenism.
Here’s the thing the most frustrated me about the reaction to Obama’s win by many of Clinton’s supporters. If they thought that the media was unfairly sexist to Clinton and Obama unfairly benefited / used it to his advantage, do they really think that things would have been better in the general election against McCain and the Republicans?
Hmmm... Now wouldn't THAT have been interesting! A Clinton Presidential bid with Palin in the fray too! Imagine the references to "cat fight" we would have endured. It is so complex isn't it? There is no single variable that determines the tide. It is a complex web. Whatever these variables are, Republicans seem to be better at exploiting them than Dems. And don't forget class. One of the things that the Reps use to their advantage is the persona of humble beginnings (though with McCain's money, this becomes more difficult with him). But Palin's the perfect "one of us" candidate.
Post a Comment